On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> > interesting thought. I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> > need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> > concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> > vacuums very well.
> This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very
> processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running
> at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
> "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see
> any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.
Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well..
In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable.Then howcome
people can sell Microsoft software and go unpunished?(By hasku(at)rost(dot)abo(dot)fi,
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-11-29 05:53:26|
|Subject: Re: nested transactions|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-11-29 03:27:32|
|Subject: Re: nested transactions |